Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1996
This Other Publication is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 by an authorized editor of BYU
ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.
Title “Everything Is Everything”: Was Joseph Smith
Influenced by Kabbalah?
Translation mine. The Loeb translation reads: "Each therefore has eve-
rything in itself and sees all things in every other. so that all are evcrywhere and
each and evcryone is all." Plotinus . Enneut/s, tra ns. A. H. Armstrong ( Harvard:
Harvard University Press. 1978-84), 5:248-49. Stephen Mac Kenna's trans-
lation rC:lds: "And cach of thcm contains all within itself, and at thc same time
sees all in evcry other, so that everywherc there is all . and all is all and each all. "
Th e Enlleads (New York: Pengui n, 19( 1). 4 14. I would like to thank Becky
Schuhhies for assistance in researching thi s paper, ami George Millon and
Daniel Fcterson for helpfu l comments. I would also like to than k Robert L.
Millet. Stephen E. Robinson. and L'ury E. Dahl.
2 All parenthetical citations are to Owens's article unless otherwise indi-
cated. A shorter. IlOPulari7.cd version of Owens's paper appeared as "Joseph
Smith: America's Hermetic Prophet." Gllosi.f; A Journal of th e !Vesum Inner
Tradition s 35 (S pring 1995): 56-64. It is interesting to compare Owens's pres-
entation of his theory to a non· Mormon, New Age audience with that found in
Dialogue. The Mormon History Association Best Article Award is mentioned in
The Mormoll History A.ssociation Newsfelfer (Summer 1(95): I. Recently. D.
Michael Quinn has uncritically acceptcd Owcns's thesis; sec The Mormon Hier-
archy: Origins of Power (Salt L:!ke City: Signature Books in association with
Smith Research Associates, t994), 265 n. I, 639, 643, 649.
252 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 8n ( 1996)
article deserves a closer crit ical evaluation than it has appare ntly
he retofore received. 3 Owens's basic thesis is thal
3 Owens antici pated a "vio lent respo nse from tradi tionalists" ( p. 119),
perh :~rstaci tl y recogni zi ng that his thesis is not immu ne \ 0 c riticism.
O. Mic hael Quinn. Early Morm onism and the Magic World Vie w (Sal!
L.1ke City: Signature Books. 1987); John L. Brooke, 111t! Refiner 's Fire: The
Mak.ing of Marmo/! Cosmology, 1644- 1844 (New York: Cambridge Un iversi ty
Press, 1994).
5 L.1ncc 5 , Owens, "The Divine Trans mutation," review of The Rcfil1 er '$
Fi re, by l ohn L. Brooke, m a/oglft! 27/4 (1994): 187.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMfTfI A.ND KABBALAH (HAMBLI N) 253
of Joseph S mith."6 Owens feels Brooke "d raws simi lar co ncl u-
sions" to his ow n (p. 160 n. 83). However, neither Qu inn's,
Brooke's, nor Owens's methods and conclus ions are beyond criti-
cism, and Owens's work suffers from many of the same problems
fou nd in Broo ke.? As thi s st udy will show, because of nu me rous
problems with evidence and analysis, none of Owens's major
propos it ions have been substantiated .
6 Owens, 'The Divine T ransmu tation:' IR8, 190. Owens is not e nt irely
positive abou t Brooke's work. He criticizes Brooke for "pursuing the trail of
counterfeiting" (p. 190), and for "entirely ignor[ing] the less world-affirmative
clements of both classical and Renaissance hermeticism" (p. 188). Nonethe-
less. Owens's overall review is quite positive. cr. Owens's comments in a simi -
lar vein in "America's Hermetic Prophet," 63-64. Owens docs not cite Brooke i n
his article, since Brooke's work appeared only as Owens's article was going to
press (p. 160 n. 83). As will be noted below, Owens relies on Quinn extensively
and unc ritically.
7 On Brooke. see William J. Hamblin. Daniel C. Peterson, and George L.
Mitton . "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace: or Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge." Re·
I'iew of Books OIl /hc Book of Mormon 6/2 (1994): 3- 58. An abridged version
of this essay 3ppcarcd in lJYU Stu(/ics 34/4 (1994- 95): 167- 8 1, along with il
review by Davis BiUon on pages 182- 92. Unpublished reviews by Grant
Underwood ("A Brooke Review") aoo David Whitaker ('"Throwing Water on
Brooke's Fire") at the 1995 Mormon History Association were also quite nega-
tive. as were those by Philip L. Uartow, "Decoding Mormonism," Chris/ian Ccn -
/"0' (17 January 1996): 52- 55, and Rich3rd L. Bushman, "The Secret History of
Mormonism." SUlls/One (March 1996): 66-70. It is interesting to note that the
positive reviews of Brooke's book tend to be from people who are nOI special-
ists in Mormon studies. For reviews of Quinn, see Stephen E. Robi nson, 8 YU
S//ulies 27/4 (1987): 88-95; and Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, 'The
Mormon as Magus," Slim/one (January 1988): 38- 39; a detailed rev iew of
Quinn's ElIrly Mormoni~'lrl awaits the second edition. promised for wimer 1996
(Signatllre Books 1996 ell/a/O!;, 8).
8 It is unfortunate that Owens uses the misleading term occill/ to describe
the esnleric tradition. In modern p,lrlance occult often conjures up images of
demonic black magic, while ils original meaning was merely "hidden" or
"esoteric." For a laiC twentiet h-century audience kabbalism and hermeticism arc
much better descrihed as ewteric rather than occult.
254 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 8/2 (1996)
" Donnld W. Parry. cd .. Temples oj {Ire AI/dell/ World: Rillluf alld Sym-
bolism (S;llt L:lke City: Descrct Book and FARMS, 1994): my article. "Temple
Motifs in Jewish Mysticism," 440-76, e)(amines some of the anteceden ts 10
Kabbalah :md hrieny alludes to the possible connections between Kabbalah and
Masonry. 461 - 63. Cf. Hamblin. Pelerson, and Mitton. "Mormon in the Fiery
Furnnce," 5S n. 95 and 57 Zl. 98, for additional references to Laue r-day Sai nt
studies that should have been consu lted by Owens.
OWENS, JOSEPH S MITH AND KABIJA[AH (HAMBLI N) 255
by leadin g non-Mo rmon scholars. Despite the fact that serious
academic study of the esoteric tradition is a relati vely recent phe-
nomenon, many of Owens's secondary sources are over a quarter
of a century old-some over a century old ,
The absence of any discussion of astrology is interest ing, since
one of Owens's major sources, D, Michael Quinn, lays some stress
on it,l2 Does Owens feel that Quinn's claims of astrolog ical influ -
e nces on Joseph Sm ith are un founded? If so, he shou ld have
menti oned this. For his understandin g of Christian Kabbalah.
Owens relies almost entirely on two books by Frances Yates, both
of wh ich arc nearl y Iwo decades old and neither of which deals
d irectl y with Ch ristian kabbalism (p p, 127-34),13 Owens' s bi bli -
ography on hermetici sm is equall y inadequate, again ci tin g o nl y
Yates (pp. 129- 34). He quotes the Hermetica either in the dated
and in adequate translation of Walter Scott , or from seconda ry
sou rces, I4 None of the recent, often revolutionary studies are
12 Quinn, Early Mormonism, SS- 66, 7[ -78, 213-19. and other refer-
ences in the index.
13 Frances A. Yates, Th e Occult Philosuphy j/l the Eliwbelhml Age
(London: Routledge, 1979), (md Giordano I1rllllO muJ the Humetic Tr(J(/itioll
(Chicngo: University of Chicago Press, 1964). Both of these books discuss
Christian Kabbalah. but it is not their focus. Basic introductory works on Chris-
tian ka bbal ism not consulted by Owens include: Joseph L. BI,1O, The Chrisriflll
ImerpretflliOll oj rhe Cabala ill/he Renaissance (New York : Columbia Uni versi lY
Press, 1944): Chnim Wirs1.ubski, Pico della Mirantlo/a 's EIICOllnler wi/I, Jewi.rll
Mysficism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989); Antoine Fnivrc and
Frederick Tristan, Kabbalis/l's chrltiens (Paris: Albin Miche l, 1979); Fran~o i s
Secret, Les kabbalisres chretiells de la renaissance. 2nd ed. (Paris: Arma Arti s,
(985). For a basic introduction, see G. Mallary Masters, "Ren3issance
Kabbal3h," in Modem Esoteric Spirilllalit)', ed, Antoine Faivre and Jacob
Needleman (New York : Crossroads, 1995), 132- S3, with bibliography on ISI-
53. On the general intellectual contex.t in which Christian kabbnlism arose, see
Jerome Friedman, Tile Mosl Ancient Teslimony: Sixteefl/h Celllllry Chris/ian-
Hehrnica in the Age oj Renaissance Nostalgia (Athens: Ohio University Press,
1983), especially 7 1-98,
14 Walter SCOII, cd, and tran~ .. Hermerica, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1924-36; reprint, Boston: Shambala, 1985), Owens fails to note thai this
source is a reprint of a sixty-year-old work, giving the impression that it
represents recent scholarship. Since Seoll worked before the establishment of
the critical edition- A. D. Nock and A,-J. Fcstugicre, ed. and trans_, Corp/IS
HermeliCUIII. 4 vo1s., 3rd. ed. (Paris: Belles Lctues, 1972 li st ed. 1946- 54])-
his tra nslat ion is unreliable. As Brian P. Copenhaver notes, "scholars have
256 FARM S REVIEW OF BOOKS 8n ( \996)
generall y confirmed Rcillcnstein 's harsh verdict on the lext [o f SCOU], whic h is
a jungle of excisions. interpo lat ions and tra nsposi ti ons so d is tant ly related to
the manuscripts thai scole s trans lation can only be rega rded a trans lation of
Scon . not of the Hermetic authors." lIermelicu (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni ver~
sity Press. 1992). li ii. Note. however. th at Seott's three vol umes o f commentary
"remain indispensable" (ibid), Owens's main secondary source is Ya tes.
GiordallO IJrt/llo (/lid Ih e Hermetic TrodiliOIl. a superb though now dated study.
15 Two indispe nsable new studies are Garth Fowden. The £g),I'l iall
Hermes: A lIistorical Approach 10 the /"(IIe l'agall Mind (Princeton: Princeton
University Press. 1986). and Copenhaver, Herm etiC(l, wh ich provides a brief
intellectua l history of the study o f the Hermctica. with full bib liography (PI>.
xlv- tix). Eli zabeth Ann Ambrosc. The Hermetica: All Alillotated Bibliograp hy
(SI. Louis: Center for Reformm ion ReSearch. 1992) is also import:ml.
16 Peler French. The World of all Elizabetlwn Maglls (New York: Dorset ,
1972). While th is is an excellent work. much more has been do ne si nce: Nieho·
Itls Clu lee. 101m Dee's Naruml Philosophy: fJetween Sciell ce alld Religion
(London : Routledge. 1988); Wi ll iam H. Sherman. 101m I)l;e: The Politic.s of
Neadblg (md Writing ill the English Rellaiss(llrce (Amherst: Uni versit y of
Massachusetts Press. 1995): R. W. Barone, "The Reputation o f John Dee: A
Cri tic;}1 Appraisal" (Ph.D. diss" Ohio State Unive rsity, 1989). Recent ed itio ns
of primary sourecs on Dee's esotcrica incl ude Gerald Suster. 10hn Dee: Esscm ial
Neadhigs (WC! lingboroug h: Crucible, 1986); Chr isto phe r Whi tby. cd .. Jolin
Dee's Actions with Sp irirs, 2 vols. (New York: Garland . 1991). I would li ke t o
tbank George Millon for assistance o n these and several su bsequent notes,
17 Owens refcrs to Frances Yates, The NQsicrllcian Enlightenment
(Londo n: Routledge, 1972). At a recent conference on the Rosicru cia n Enl ig ht-
e nment (Ces ky Krumlov, Czech Republic. September 1995), a leadi ng Rosicru-
cian scholar. Adam McLean, noted that Yates's wo rk . though pioneeri ng and
brillian t, is now a quarter century old and is being superseded by the discovery
and interpretatio n of many new docu me nts (lecturc given II Septe mber 19 95.
tape recordi ng in the possession of George L. Milton). Especiall y importan t is
th e work of Corlos Gilly and others at the Bibliotheco Philoso phiea Hermeticn at
Arllsterdam, wh ic h is e ll pected to reS Ult in majo r new studies on Rosicrucian ori-
gins. Provisionally. see Carlos G ill y. cd .. Gimelia Rhodos/(lUfotica: Die Rosen·
krellzcr im Spiegel der zwisdren 1610 lIIuJ 1660 ell ts/(wdcllelr Halldschrijlen IIIld
Dmcke (Amsterdam: Pelikan n. 1995). Sec also studies by Chris tophe r Mci n tosh.
The Rosicrucians: The W s/Or)'. MythQlogy alw Riluals of 0/1 Occillt Order. 2 nd
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBALAH (HAM BLIN) 257
which is quite important to hi s overall thes is, Owens relies on dated
studies and late nineteenth-ce ntury Masonic mythologies (p. 149
n. 65),18 ignoring the seminal recent work of Stevenson and ot h-
ers. 19
Owen s's failure to lise the broad ran ge of recent studies on the
esoteric tradition is compounded by an occas ional uncritical
evaluati on of the limited secondary sources he does use. 20 Fur-
thermore, for the most part, Owens 's account of the Western eso-
teric traditi on docs not rely on primary sources, or eve n tran sla-
tions of primary sources. but on secondary summaries. which he
often mi sunderstands or misrepresenrs. Thi s unfamiliarity with
both the primary and secondary sources may in part ex plain the
cd. (London: Crucible, 19S7), and his The Rose CroH (//u/lhe Age of Reaso n
(Lciden: Brill, 1992). For ~dd itional bibliogruphy see also Roland Edighoffer,
" Rosicrucianism: f rom the Sevc nlcenth to the Twentieth Century," in Modern
ESOIeric SpiritIHIIi/y, 186- 209,
18 Owens's major sources arc Douglas Knoop and G. Jones. The Genesis
of Preeml/Sollry (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1949): Robert F.
Gould. The History of Freemasonry. 4 vols. (New York : Yorston. [885-89);
Robert MilCOY, Gelltrtll Nistory. Cyclopedia t/lld Dictionary of FreeIlUison/")'
(New York : Masonic. 1872).
19 David Stevcnson. The Origifl$ of Freemasonr)'.' Tire Scollish Century
/590-17/0 (C;lmoridge: Cnmbridge University Press. 1988) : (lnd his Th e First
Freemasons : Seotlalld's /:,'(lrly Lot/gel' (llltl Their Members (Aberdeen: Aberdeen
Univcrsity Press. 1989): John Hamill, Till! Grtlft: A History of En glish Freelflll-
sollry (Wellingborough: Crucible. 19S6): R. William Weisberger, SpecIIllllive
f-reemasonry fl/ul Ihe EnlighlCnnlt'Tll (Boulder: East European Mo nographs.
1993): Margaret Jacob, Tilt' Radical Enfigllllmmem: I'(lmllt'ists. fret'lIU1l'Ons (lfuf
RelJublicmrs (London: Allert & Unwin, 1981).
20 Owens maintains that "Smith·s best overall biogra phy rcmains Fawn
M. Brodie" ("America's Hermetic Prophet." 64 n. 3), in spite of the negative
reviews the book has received. For a semicentennial retrospective ;Jnalysis of
Faw n Brodie. wilh full references 10 reviews. see Louis C. Midglcy, " F. M.
Brodie-' TIle fa sting Hcrmi t and Very Saint of Ignorancc': A Biographcr and
Her Legcnd," pagcs 147- 230 in this issue of FARMS Rel'iew of Books. Note the
warning of Quinn, The MormOT' Hierorchy, 27 1 n. 18-hardly a Lattcr·day Silint
"apologist"-"Some may wonder why I rarely cilc Brodie. Brodic·s biogra-
phy is nawed by its inattention to t rucial ;rrchival materials and by her pench;lOt
for filtering evidence ilnd anJlysis through thc perspective that the Mormon
prophet WJS either a ·parrl]wh· who believed his own lies or a fraud,'· Other ex-
amples of Owens's uncri tical approach to both primary and secondary sources
will be given below ,
258 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS sn (1996)
numerous errors that occur throughout his article (discussed
below).
I am certainl y not ad vocatin g bibliography padding,2 1 but
the absence of a number of important reccnt studies from
Owens's notes-many of which tran sform our understanding of
the issues Owens raises-should alert readers to the need to ap -
proach many of his interpretations skeptically and carefully.22
Errors of Fact
The need for carc and skeptici sm is confirmed by the nume r-
ous errors of fact thai occur in Owens' s gene ral history of esoteri ·
cism in the West.
• Owens maintains that Chri stian Kabbal ah began "first with
the Flore ntine court of Lorenzo de Medici at the end of the fif-
tee nth century" (p. 120). However, according to Scholem, " hi s -
torically. Chri stian Kabbalah spran g fro m two sources. Th e fi rst
was the c hristo log ical speculations of a number of Jewish co nverts
who arc kn ow n 10 us fro m the end of the 13th century until the
pe riod of the Spanish expul sio n lof the Je wsJ."23 The second and
most impo rtant source was Pico della Mi rando la's c ircle in the late
fiftee nth -century Platonic Acade my o r the Medic is at Flore nce,
menti oned by O wens. Owens's claim that "Jewi sh Kabbali sts ..
assisted IPico de lla Mirando la] in translating a considerabl e po r-
ti on o f Kabba li stic lite rature into Latin " (p. 130) is misleadin g. In
fa ct Pico took no part in the tmnslation, whic h was largely the
phi losopher's sto ne. T here is no re lationship beyond the fact that
both happen to be called a slonc. 27
• Owens's descript ion of the " blosso min g fof Kabbalah] in
twe lfth -century Spain" is m islead ing. Kabba li sm origi nated in latc
twe lft h-century Prove nce in southern France; Kabbalah in Spa in
" blossomed" in the thirtee nth and fourteenth cen luries. 28
• Owe ns mainta ins that the "sy mbol s lof the sun, moo n, an d
stars) combin ed o n the fayadc of the Nau voo Temple to e mbod y
in sacred architecture a vision of Divin ity unique to Hermeticism,
Rosicruc ianism, and alche my" (p. 137. emphasis added). Fur-
thermore , after di scussing sy mbolism of the sun , moon, angels,
trumpets. sacred wedding, beehi ves, and the all- seeing eye, O wens
asserts-without even the se mblance of a footno te-that " the se
are the propagating sources of the sy mbols fin all y earved in sto ne
upon Joseph 's Nauvoo Te mple. To thi s He rmetic-alche mical
trad ition a nd its unique vision alone did [these sy mbols] pertain ,
fro m it alon e came an asserti on of their sac red import. Earl y
Mo rmonism' s affin it y for and incorporatio n of the same sy m-
bo lic mot ifs strong ly ev idences its ililrinsic link with the Hermetic
tradi tion " (p. 145, e mphas is added). Uniqu e? Al one? Int rinsic?
27 For gener,1 1 descriptions of the philosophe r's stone, see Jung. Mys·
/e rilllll COIli/me/iollis, 42-48, and indell under lal,is (p. 672) and prima lIIateria
(p. 68 1): ~-l ircea Etiade. The Porge and the Cfllcihfl': Tl1I' Origins wul StfilC/lires
of Alchemy. 2nd cd. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1(56), esp . 160 -
68: Ric h:mi Cavendish. The IJfn ck Ar/s (New York: Capricorn, 19(1), 143 - 80.
gives a populari7.ed summary. Divination through rellective surfaces is much
older than the idea of the ph ilosopher' s stone: see Theodore Besterman. Cryswl -
Gming: A 51l1d)' ill lire Hislo,}', DislribwiOlI, 71'1.'0,.)' alld Practice of Sc ry ing
(Hyde P;1rk: University Books. 1965). 9- 15, 40- 51. 72- 91. for references !O
evidence, much of whic h dmes earlier tha n alchemy and the philoso pher's stone.
John Dec and Ed wa rd Kelly used an Aztec obsidian divi nation mirror (now in the
British museum) for scrying (ibid .. 20-21). Ancient Olmecs used polished iron
mi rrors fo r divination: see John B. Carlson. "Olmec Concave Iron-Ore Mirrors:
T he Aesthet ics of a Lith ic Technology and the Lord of the Mi rror," in Tile Olmec
nnd Their Neighbors, cd. Elizabeth P. Benson (Washington: Dumbanon Oaks.
1981). 11 7-47. esp. 126- 27. See Justi n Kerr and Bruce M. White. Tire Dllllec
World: Rill/al ww Rlliersh ip (Princeton: The An Museum of Princeton Univer-
sity. 1996). 233. 254. for fi ne color photographs. T hese pre·Colu mbia n,
Mesoamerican ellamples could hard ly have been influenced by the phi losopher's
stone.
28 Gcrshom G. Seholcm. Origins of Kabbalah ( Princeto n: Princeton Uni-
versity Press. 1987).
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBALAH (HAMBLI N) 261
Octopus, 1975), 136; God using il compass in creation is found in the Bible
Moraliscc (thirteenth century) in W. Kirk MoeNulty, Freemasonry: A Journey
Ihrough Rimal alUl Symbol (London: Thomes and Hudson, 199 1), 33; or the
Holkhnm Bible (fourteenth century). reproduced in Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi,
KClbbalah : TradiliOll of Hiddell IVi,HlolIZ (London: Thames and Hudson, 1979),34.
Exomples could be fu rt her multiplied. As a coutionary example of the dangers of
ossuming that paralle l equals causality. one can usefully study the funerary s ilk
b:mner of f;ln Yen Shih frum Astana in eighth-century Chi na, which includes an
example of the symbolic use of both the compass and the square in a cosmic
setting; for an illustration. see Giorgio de Santill:!na and Henha von Dechcnd.
Ilamln's Mill: All ESiay (JII Myth alld the Frame of Time (Boston: Gambit,
1969). 273. Arc we to assume a caus;)1 relationship between this Chinese
example and those of Freemasonry'! I would like to thank Michael Lyon for
dr.:lwing my ;llIention to these examples. Todd Compton has provided evidence
of pre-M:lsonic usc of other Masonic symbols; see '~I"'he Handclasp and Embrace
as Tokens of Recognition:' in By Study wid Also by Faith: Essay$ ill Nailor of
Hugll IV. Nibfey. cd. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City:
Desere! Book ond FARMS. 1990), 1:61 1-42. and 'The Whole Token: Mystery
Symbolism in Classical Recognition Drama," £poche 13 ( 1985): 1- 81.
32 Moshc Idel. Kabbalah: New PI'rSI,,'ctives (Ncw Haven: Yale University
Press. \988).42-46. with numerous other references in the index.
33 Gershom G. Scholem. 011 the Mystical Shape of Ihe Godhead (New
York: Schocken, 1991). 252,
34 Elliot R. Wolfson. Through (j SpecululII Tluu Sliines: Visioll alld fmagi·
Ilatioll in Medin·al Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994),273: Wolfson's index entry for Ncoplatonism includes numerous similar
passages, It should also be noted th:lt kabba listic and hermetic mctaphysics wcre
,
For the hermelic isls and other mystics in the broader Ncopl a-
Ionic tradition, God is the ineffabl e font of the emanati on of all
reality. Human "dei fi ca tion " is poss ible because humans are
ulti mately simply e manati ons of God .3 5 Deificat ion means to
abandon the ph ysical body and fo r the mind to ascend and aga in
become part of God' s Mi nd;36 both God and the divine part of
human s arc incorporeal. 3? Thu s the soul "cannot be deifi ed wh ile
in a hu man body," but must pass through a series of re incar-
nations into hig her and higher forms of being before reaching
div inity,38 Di vinizat ion is possible because human " mind
co mes from the very essence of god ... . In humans thi s mind is
go d . "39
All thi s is rad ica lly diffe rent fro m Joseph Smith 's un de r ~
standin g of the nature of God and human deification. From th e
perspective of the mystical movements of the Neoplatonic trad i ~
tion, human de ificat io n C<ln be called henosis (be in g made o ne
[with God ] = Latin unio mystica, mystical uni on Iwith God],
Hebrew sod ha ~yill/ld , the mystery of un ifi catio n [with God]), as
di stinct fro m theosis o r rheopoesis: be ing made a god. Wolfson
furth e r clarifies this important distinction:
not the same. despite the fact that their presuppositions were both fu ndamen tally
Neoplatonic. Occasional non-Neoplatonic forms of mys ticism nre found among
kaboalists-see Moshe Idel. The MYSfiCflI Experience if! Abraham Abu /afia
(Albany: State Un ive rsity of New York Press. 1988).
35 This pant heism is discussed in Corpld fiermelicll/II (hereafter CH),
12:2 1- 23 ",Copenhaver. fiermelica.48. For the b bbalistie understanding of
emanation. sec The lVi.wfom of Ihe Zollor: AI! Al!lhofogy of Te XIS. cd. Isaiah
Ti shby, lra ns. David Goldstein, 3 vols. (Ox fo rd : Oxford University Press.
19891. 1:27]-83.
6 CH 1:24- 26 '" Copenhnve r. lIermelica, 5-6. notes. discussion. :lIld ref-
erences 119. 121.
37 CH 4:6-7 '" Copenhaver, f/ erm elica. 16.
38 CH 10:6-8 '" Copenhaver, lIermelica, 31-32. notes. disc ussion. and
references 157- 58: quol:ltion from CIf [0: 6.
39 CH J 2: 1 '" Copcnhllver, I/erme/ico. 4].
264 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 812 ( 1996)
which cannot be docu men ted with certainl y" (p. 160). Phrases
like "a few tentative evidences suggesti ng" (p . 164), "s uch c on ~
tacts re mai n beyond easy doc ume nt ation" (p . 173), and
"a lthough there is no ev idence" (p. 184) abound throughout his
work- but not with an ythin g near the frequency with whic h we
should find the m.
The specu lative and hypothetical nature of Owens's thesis is
de monstrated by hi s extensive use of the word perhaps and ils
many synony ms, and hi s frcquent use of rhetorical questions in
his atte mpts to li nk Joseph with the esotcric tradit ion . Suc h te nta·
tive language is on ly occas ionall y found in the first part of his
article, which is ma inl y concerned with a summary of the hi story
of the esoteric tradi tions.42 O nce Owens begins to disc uss L att e r~
day Saint history (pp. 154- 9 1), however, the probablys become
ubiquitous. Every page of text has at least one e xamp le of such
language-one page has a phenome na l nine!4) His frequ ent fai l ~
ure to provide evidence for his pro pos iti ons leads to repeated
unsupported assert ions that are far too common to e nume rate
fu ll y. A few examples must suffi ce .
• O wens's standard of e va luating e vidence is frequent ly in tol ·
erab ly weak and broad. For ex ample, he claims that a "de pic tion
of the [tree of the} Seftroth [from s i xt ee nl h ~ and se ve nt eenl h ~
century Lat in books1 alone could have conveyed a wealth of ideas
about an e manat ional structure in the di vine life ... which were
like th ose deve loped in Mormon th eo logy" (p . 165, emphas is
added). I cha1[enge anyone unfamiliar with Kabbalah to look at
the scfi rotic tree from the Portae L/leis (p. 124, fi g. I) and rrom
that alone e xplai n the Neoplatonic emanat ion ist theosophy or the
kabba lists. More importanl ly, how could anyone possibly deri ve
44 Owens·~ argume m in this section rests on the hidden and uns ubstanti ·
ated assumption th:ll Joseph somehow had access to, and was innuenccd by. rare
si;l;teemh· and seventeenth·century Latin esoteric le;l;ts. If Joseph did not have
access to such tC;I; ts, how W;lS he supposed to have sccn and been innuenced by a
picture of the Trcc of the Serirot?
45 The loci c1unie; 011 the return of Elijah arc Malachi 4:5-6 :md Matt hew
16: 14; 17:3. 12. Note that Elias is thc Grceo·L:ltin form of Elijah: see Hamblin.
Peterson. and Millon. "Mormon in Ihe Fiery Furnaec:· 39-43, on Brookc·!', more
egregious railure to examinc the biblica l antecedents of Mormon thoughl. One is
reminded of the I)octour of Phisik in Chaucer-··his studic was but lite! on the
Biblc·· (ClIIHcrbu,.y Tales, 1:438).
OWENS. JOSEPH SMITH A ND KABIJALAII ( HAMBLIN) 267
lde1. KalJba/llil. 97- 103). controll ing ore:J(hing (Idel. Mp·licui EXI'erieli ce.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBAVlf/ (HAMB LIN) 275
24-28). visu;llizations of the leHers of the Divine Names (ibid .. 30- 33).
contemplation or the navel (ibid., 34- 35), listening to musie (ibid., 53-64 ),
ritual weeping (ldel, Kabbalah. 75- 88), and visualil.ation of colors (ibid., 103-
I I). None of these practices, as mystical tec hniques, can be found in
Mormonism. T hese techniques could be seen as attempts to compel God to reveal
himself. Joseph Smith. on the other hand, maintained that although man may
sce God, "it shall be in his [God's] own time, and in his own way, and according
to his own will" (D&C 88:68).
73 Wolfson, Through a Speculum, deals elltcnsively with these types of
dis tinctions. The imagif/(lliOf/ wa5 where images could be formed in the mind.
while the inteflect was the site or pristine intellection without the senses or v is-
ual imagery. From this viewpoint, pure intellection of God is superior to imagin-
ing God, and both are superior to materialistic understandings such as those held
by Joseph Smith.
74 This, of course, is the opposite of Ihe Latter-day Saint view. Sec. for
ell ample. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 <lnu the useful study by David L.
Paulsen, 'T he Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration. JUdeo-C hristian.
and Philosophical Perspectives:' nyu Sludies 35/4 (1995-96): 6-94.
75 Idel. Abu/a/ia. 13.
276 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 8!2 (1996)
lilCrary " intuiti o n" (p. 11 8), maintaining that "care ful reeva lua-
tion of historical data suggests there is both a poetic and an un -
suspected factual substance to Bl oom's th es is" (p. 11 8). For
Owens, Joseph didn ' t mere ly have a creati ve poeti c imaginati o n
like the kabbali sts-as claimed by Bl oo m~h e was historically in -
flu enced by them !
A fin a l significant probl em re lated to se mantic equi vocati on is
the blurring of the di stincti ons between kabbalism and herme ti -
c ism, as if they were a single syste m of tho ught. So me branc hes o f
the Western esoteric traditio ns were indeed confl ated b y
Re naissance magi based on their theory of prisca theologia-th e
primordia l re ve lati on of God to pagan philoso phers.80 But even if
we were to concede that Joseph indeed read Jewish kabbali stic
texts, as Owens alleges, this would not provide ev idence for kno wl -
edge of the Hermctica. Although so me Christian ka bbali sts did
indeed merge hermeticis m with Kabbalah in the sixteenth and sev-
enteenth centuries . traditio nal 1cwish kabbali sts were not greatl y
influenced by Christian he rmetic ism. Thus Joseph could not have
been influenced by any "he rme ti c" ideas fro m reading Jewi sh
kabbalistic tex ts. Contra Owens. Herbert Leve nthal noted,
80 On the idea or the prism Ihe%gia. see Daniel P. Walker, The Andenl
Theology: Sru(/ies in Chris/iall Phl/ollism Jrom 'he Fif/('(·ltlll 10 l/ie £igill('clHir
Cenl/Uy (London: Duckworth. 1972): cf. Yates. Ciordmw lJomo. 17-18.58.
81 Leventhal. tl' llie S!w(/ow oJ IIII' EII/iglllellllwlII. 262.
278 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 812 ( 1996)
Problems of Causality
Granting. for the sake of argument, that Owens can establish
leg itimate paraliels between Latter-day Saint and esoteric ideas, v.e
must now turn to the quest ion of the nature of the relationship and
the potential causes of such alleged parallels. Like Brooke, Owens
suffers from unrestrained para ll elomania, making little effort to
distinguish between ana log and causal antecedent. Owens's me-
thodology in dea ling with parallels suffers from precisely the
same n aws previously noted in Brooke.
Th roughout his entire book, Brooke is plagued
with the problem of analog ue versus causal antecedent,
which he himself recognizes on occas io n. The pro bl e m
of causality has been well summari zed by Jonathan Z .
S mith: " Homology [causal antecedent] is a si milarit y
of fo rm or structure bel\veen two species shared from
their common anceslOr; an analogy is a si mil ari ty of
form or structure between two spec ies not sharing a
common ancestor. " Brooke wou ld have done well to
follow Jonathan Smith's excellent anal ysis of the
problem.
It is agreed that the state ment "x resembles y" is
logically incomplete ... [because itl suppresslcs
thel multi -term statement of analogy and differ-
ence capable of being properly ex pressed in
fo rmul ations such as: "x resembles y more than
z with respect to ... ;" o r, "x resembl es y more
than IV resembles z with respect to .... "
That is to say, the statement of comparison is
never dyadic, bu t always triadic; there is always
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KA BBALAH (H AM BLI N) 279
For Owens and Brooke the assert ion of any alleged para llel
between hermetic and Mormon ideas- most of which are eit her
very weak, based on mi sunderstandings, or derived fro m bi bl ical
antecedents- is suffic ient to all ow us to assume causality. Indeed,
causa lity between the alleged parallels is almost always assu med; it
is almost neve r argued or demonstrated.
Again, like Brooke, Owens's entire thes is is an extended exer-
cise in the fall acy of the perfect analogy; he is constant ly assertin g
that if one parallel can be demonstrated between Mormoni sm and
hermet icism, then the ent ire systems must somehow be in terre-
lated .83 Again, referri ng 10 a parallel di scuss ion on Brooke,
Brooke is a rhetorica l master at the fa llacy of per-
fect analogy, wh ich "consists in reasoning from a par-
ti al resemblance between two entities to an entire and
exact correspondence. It is an erroneous inference
from the fact that A and B are similar in some respects
to the false conclus ion that they arc the same in all re-
spects." Reade rs shou ld be on the lookout for frequent
use of an extended version of th is fallacy. Brooke re-
peatedly argues as follows: Item 1 has characteristics A
and B; item 2 has characterist ics Band C; item 3 has
characteri stics C and D; therefore. since 1 and 2 share
one characteristic (B), and 2 and 3 share one charac-
teristic (C), 1 and 3 must share some characteristics. Bu t
84 ]·I:lmblin. Peterson, and Minon. " Mormon in the Fiery Furnace." 45.
85 Ibi d.. 55-58.
86 For Broo ke' s problems in this regard. sec Hamblin. Pelerson. and
Mitton, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace." 55- 57. This is not necessa rily to a rgue
th~t the nncien! p:U<lllcis arc compieic and nbsu lute. nor is it to argue a ca usal
connection. Rmher. it is simply to point out th ill the :ugumenl of ,I causal rela-
tionship between Mormonism and Western esotericism cannot be understood
unlil the nature ,md cause of the paral lels between Mormonism and nncien t
esotericism arc clucidmcd.
87 On the ideas of gematria. sec Scholc m. Kahhalall . 337--n. On 5l'jirot.
sec Tis hby. Wi5dom of tire Z}har. 1:269- 370: Scholem. Kahbalah. 9 6 - 116:
Scholem. Major Trl'ml5. 205-25: and helow, p. 300 n. 140. On emaf\:l tioni sm.
see Tishby. lVi5dolll of fh e Zohar. I :273- 83: and above. pp. 263-64.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KAB1JAUH (HAMBLIN) 28 1
90 II is. of course. possible Ihal Ihe Bidamon lalism:ln (and perhaps olher
Bidnmon arlif:lcls) did nOI in facl belong 10 Joseph Smith. Charles Bidamon may
have been a modern counterpart uf the medieval relic mongers, who- for the
right price-could dredge up a lock of hair or bil of bone of any required early
s:linl. The question of the authenticity of some of the Bidamon :lrtifacts is worth
further stlldy.
91 Quinn. /:'arly Mormol!i;l'J/!, 57.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KAilBALAIl (HAMBLIN) 283
O wens thm Ihis is not the case, Here we find far more cvidence of Owens be ing
closely associated with the New Age movement than we h~ve for Joseph Smith's
alleged associmion wit h hermeticists, Yet Owens insists that he does not share
New Age presuppositions, Might not the same be true of Joseph Smith?
102 Michael W. Homer. "'Similarit y of Priesthood in Maso nry': The Rela-
tio nship between Freemasonry and Mormonism." Dialogue 27/3 ( 1994): 1-1 16.
is useful and provides helpful bibliography. but fre{luently fails to follow t hese
methodological impermives.
103 See. further. the comments in Hambli n, Pcterson, and Mi llo n.
"Mormon in the Fiery Furnacc," 52-S8.
I 04 Witne~s the endless con fusion and contradiction on the issue of the so-
callcd ·'Cadianton Masons." Many critics or the Book of Mormon agree that t he
Gadi:l!ltons :1rc jll~t Masons in disguise, but no o ne can comc up wit h a coherent
explanation of why Joseph-if he au thored the book- never used the Book of
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBAUH (HAM BLI N) 287
108 Hnmblin . Peterson, :md Mitton, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace," 52;
cf. Albert Mackey, All Encyclopedia oJ Freemw.onry (C hi cago: M:lsonic His-
wry, 1921). 1:29 .
109 After a decade of preliminary attempts. the Rite of Egypt ( Rife de Mis-
wim) was founded by Cagliostro in Venice in 1788 and was introduced in France
after 1810. where it was li nked wi th anti-Roplist Ilonapartist ci rcl es. As such,
it was suppressed in 1820 and bricny revived between 1838 ~lnd 1841. Li gou,
Dietjolr/wire de /a Frwrc.Ma~O/ml'rie, 13. 178-8 1. 1018- 19. On C:lgliostro. see
ibid .. 176-84. and tl.b ssimo Intfo vigne, "Arcana Arcanorum: Cagliostro's Leg-
acy in Contemporary Magical Movements." Sy:ygy: iOllrtlll/ oJ A/terrllllil'/! Re-
ligion mul Cllilllre I (S pring/Summer 1992): 117-35.
110 It is possible thai \ale eightee nth- century Engl ish Freemnsons were
first inlluenced by developments on the Comineni, then either translmed Of
orally tran~mitled this lore to Engli sh M ason~. wbo tben somehow passed it on
to American fromier Masons in the mid-nineteenth ccntury. If Owens wishes to
mainl1lin sllch a C!lllsal develop ment. he needs to demonst rate it witb contempo-
mry primary ~Ollrees. not simply assert it.
III Also known as Blue Lodge. DwellS himself ackn owledges that the basic
three degrees of the York rile into which Joseph was initiated hild l'Cw "I aye rings
of esoteric accretions" (p. 169).
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBAlAH (HAMBLIN) 289
influence. He therefore asserts that "lJoh n C.] Bennett may very
well have brou ght something more than I York] Blue Lodge
Masonry to Nauvoo" (p . 172), and that " the Masonry LBennett l
brought to Nauvoo had several unu sual occult aspects" (p . 170) .
Does Owens provide any e vide nce for these asserti ons? Simply a
furt her asserti on that "Be nn ett 's interests, including re li gion,
medicine, the mi litary , and Masonry, suggest a person inclined
towards investi gating the more esoteric aspects of Ma so nry"
(p. 170). Just why interest in re li gion, medicine, and the military
suggests an inclinat ion toward esotericism is never explained.
For an intelligent di scuss ion of these issues to be unde rtak en
we need specific evidence of whi ch Masonic rites were used in
Nauvoo, when, by whom. what the rites contained, and whm lore
they claImed. Because some Masoni c rile, somew here in Europe ,
in a non-Engli sh context, decades befo re or aft er Joseph was born ,
had some esoteric content , we cannot therefore concl ude that
Joseph Smith in Nauvoo in 1842 wa.. influenced by these ideas.
Owens's thesis requires us to believe that Joseph was influenced
by forms of Free masonry that did not exisl in the United States,
that had ceased to ex ist before his birth . that devel oped on ly after
hi s death , or- as in the case of the Rite de Perfection- that proba-
bly didn ' t even ex ist at all.
113 Alcxandcr Ncibaur, "The Jews," Times WId Seasons 4 (I June 1843):
220- 22; 4 (15 June 1843): 233- 34.
114 Owens does recognizc the possibility that Neibauf could have tDken
notes from kabbalistic books hc read in Engl:md and therefore did not have the
texts in Nauvoo, or that Neibaur could have obtained his information from a sec-
ondary source (p. 176). As noted below, his paper consistently argues for direct
acccss to kabbalistic tcxts.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITFI AND KABBALAH ( HAMBLIN) 29 1
115 In:l pcrson:!1 Intcrnct communication, Owcns insists th:lt he never in-
tended to cl:lim that Joseph h:ld personally read the Zollar. If this was Owens's
original position, he unfortunately d id not m:lke it clear in his article.
116 Of the 24 major divisions of the Zoi1ar d iscussed by Seholem.
Kabbalah, 2 16- 19. only one, the Midrash ha-Ne'lam, "is a mixture of I-Icbrew
and Ararn:lic" (ibid .. 217; cr. 226). The rest of the Zoh{lr, excepting quotations
from older Hebrew texts, was written in Arnm:lic (ibid .. 226). Cf. Tishby, Wis-
dom of the 7.,o}wr, 1:64- 68.
117 Scholem, Kabbalah. 226.
118 '1 'he question of translating thc lohar into Hebrew had :!Iready arisen
among the Kabba tists of the 14th century." Schotern, Kabblliall. 239. Seholem
cites eight partial or complete transl:llions of the Zohar that were nude through
the early ni neteenth century (ihid., 239-40): none were published. The modern
edition of Yehudah Ashl:lg (Jerusalem: Press of the Researc h Center. 1945-58)
includes a Ilebrew tr:lnsi:ltion: Isaiah Tishby also tmnsl:lled selections into
Hebrew-Scholem, K(lbbalah, 238. 240, (1957-61); Tishby's work has been
translated into EngJish- Tishby (The Wisdom of the Zohor); sec xxi-xxxi for a
discussion of its translation history. Note lliso the existence of II large number of
Aramaic T:lrgums, transilltions of the Hebrew Bible into Aramllie; see Stephan A.
292 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 812 ( 1996)
Kaufman, "Aramaic," in The Anchor Wble DiCliOltary, ed. David Noel Freedman,
(New York: Doubleday. 1992).4:173-78.
119 I would like to thank Clark Goble for bringing this to my attention.
120 Ezra 4:8- 6:18: 7:12- 26; Daniel 2:4-7:28, alo ng with a few semtercd
words and phrases.
121 TimesGlldSetlSolls5{18April 1844): 511.
OWENS. JOSEPH SMITH AND KA8BALAJI (H AMBLIN) 293
13 1 Wi rswbski maintains that "Pica [de lla Mi randola l could wri te an e xer-
c ise in lIebrew prose compos ition moder,lIcly welL But to read a kabbali stic
book in the ori gi nal his mastery of l-Iebrew would have had to be of an ent irely
d ifferent order which wou ld lake yea rs 10 acquire. . It is qui le o ut of the ques-
tion th:11 Pico could nt Ih:ll time [1 4861 have read an unlransbtcd kabba lislic
book unaided." Pico dd/n M ir(U,dO/(I'J Encoullter. 4 (Wirswbski is not d iscuss-
ing the Aramaic Zohar here. bUI Hebrew k;Jhbalistic lexls). If Pico. one of the
greatest polyma th k schal:lrs of Ihe Renaissance. was unable 10 read kab bal iSl ic
tex Is afte r his introductory slUdy of Hcbrew. why should we assume Jose ph Smi th
would h;1Ve been able to'!
OWENS, JOSEPH SMrrH AND KABBAlAH (HAMBLIN) 297
value and bulk, they are not men tioned in Ne ibaur's estate.
Ne ither Ne ibaur nor anyone e lse ever quoted from them before or
after the Times and Seasom' article. No ulliquely kabba listic ideas
or terms surface in Latter·day Sa int thoug h!. For a ll intents, these
rare val uabl e books-important enough to supposedly transform
Latter-day Sai nt doctri ne in the King Follett Discourse-simpl y
vanished off the face of the eart h. And all this study of kabbali stic
tex ts was purported ly goin g on at prec isely the time Joseph was
ex hibiting the Egyptian papyri . If, as alleged , Joseph believed the
Zollar was the "o ld Bible" ( p. 183), why did Joseph not exh ibi t
the Zolwr and other rare kabbalistic texts along with the Egypt ian
papy ri?
Owens's argu mem is that since Neibaur quotes kabba listic
texts in hi s Times alld Seasons article, he must have had direct
access to those texts. There is, of course, a coun terexp lanation-
that Neibaur obtained the in fo rmat ion he presents in his art icle
from a secondary source. 132 Owens main tains that "a sing le
uncited compi lati on of kabba li stic materia ls contai ni ng this wide
collecti on of c itations has not yet been brought to my attent ion"
(p. 176 n. 127). Let me ass ist. The probab le source for Ne ibau r's
in formation is the SeIer Nishmat Hayyim of Manasseh ben Israel
( 1604- 1657), originall y published in 1651. 133 Manasseh was a
brilli ant man, "regarded in the world of scho larshi p as the leadi ng
representative of Hebrew learning, "134 who fo unded the firs t
Hebrew printi ng press in Amsterdam in 1626. He wrote the
Nishmat in the prime of his intellec tua l li fe. Manasseh's Nishmat is
132 Owens recognizes this possibility (p. 176 n. 127), along wi th the op-
tions that NeibauT studied the lexts in Europe, but did not have the m with him i n
Nauvoo.
133 For basic background on Manassch (or Menasseh) ben Israel, see Yoser
Kap lan, lIenry Mechou lan, and Richard H. Popkin, Men(lsseiz ben Israel (llld His
World (Leiden: Brill, 1989); Jesse Ross, "A Study of Manasseh ben Israe l's
·Nishmath Hayyim'·' (master's thesis. Hebrew Union College, 1931); Judah J.
Siolki, Menasseh ben Ismel: His Life ,mel Times (London: Jewish Religious Edu-
cational Publications, (953); Cecil Roth. A UJe oj Menasseh ben Israel (1935:
repri nt, New York: Arno Press. 1975): Ma nasseh ben Israel, Seier Nishmal
I/a)"im (1651; reprint, Brook lyn: Saphrograph, 1984 or 1985). In personal cor-
respondence with me Owens suggested that Manasseh's work might be a possi -
ble secondary source ror Neibaur's article.
\34 Cecil Roth. "Manasseh ben Israel." in EJ 11 :856.
298 FARMS RE VIEW OF BOOKS 812 ( 1996)
the first text quoted by Neibaur in hi s Tim es and Sea sons articl e.
All other te xts cited by Ncibaur date from before 1651 , and the re-
fore could ha ve been read and quoted by Manasseh. A compari -
son of Manassch's sources used in the N; shmal sho ws that most of
the sources ciled by Neibaur were also used by Manasseh. 135
Finally. Manasseh's Nishmat was reprinted in 1841 , the year
Neibaur le ft England for Nau voo. and would therefore have been
casily access ible in a conte mporary edition . 136
Owens's theory requires that Nc ibaur have access to dozens o f
rare Hebrew books, some available o nly in edition s thai we re two
or three hundred years old . Neibaur must have read all these
books and personally se lected those passages relating to the th e me
of hi s short essay. Aftcr all this immense labor, for some un e x-
plained reaso n Neibaur never refers to or cites from thi s e xtensive
library of rare books aga in . Furthermore, for some arcane reason
never ex pla ined by Owens, Neibaur appears to have studi ed onl y
book s publi shed before 1651 , ignoring all the more accessible
and ine xpensive works published in the subseq uent two centuri es !
The alternati ve theory requires th at Neibaur have access to onl y
one boo k. , reprinted in the year before he publi shed hi s article, a
book by a world-fam ous Je wi sh sc holar who wrote an entire bo ok
on the subject of Ne ibaur's short essay , who had been an inte rna-
tional book dealer. and who is known to have read and cited
nearl y all the works me ntioned by Neibaur. Thu s onl y one book
need ha ve been misplaced or overlooked in Ne ibaur' s estate,
rather than an entire kabbali stic library.137
135 Ross. "A Study of Man:lSSe h ben Israel"s . Nishmath Hayyim:" 10-23.
provides a list of the main sources used in Manassch's Nishmal , which can be
compared with the sourees cited by Neibaur in the Times and Seasons (see appen-
dix). Ross notes that Manasseh quotcs from all the standard Talmud ic litera ture
:md the Zoha r.
136 Ma nasse h ben Israel. SeIer Nishmat Hayim ( 165 1; reprint, Ste nin :
Schrent1.el. 184 1).
137 I have nei the r the time nor the incl ination to read Manasseh's ent ire
work searchi ng for the possible refe rences cited in Nciba ur's Times ami Seaso ns
:lTticle. Fu rthe r resea rch in this direction could conclusive ly de mo nstrate one way
or another if the Nish I/WI was Neibaur's major or sole source for his art icle.
•
138 The King FoileH Discourse is available from several different publica-
tions: Donald Q. Cannon and Larry E. DahL The Prophet Josel,1I Smith's Kiltg
Follell Discourse: A Six Co/um'l Comp(lrison of Origin(ll Notes mul Ama/gama-
lions (provo. Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1983) (hereaJter Cannon).
provides six parallel columns of the four journal sources, the standard edition (=
Time ollLi Seosons. II C, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smj/h) , and Stan
Larson's amalgamated text: Stan Larson. ''The King FolleH Discourse: A Newly
Am:lIgamated Tcxt," BYU Studies 18J1 ( 1978): 193-208 (hereafter Larson).
which is also in the Cannon and Dahl collection. Critical editions of the journal
sources can be found in Andrew F. Ehat :md Lyndon W. Cook. Tlu Words of
Jos eph Smith (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980); tile standard
text was first published in Times (lnd Sew;{)/l.I" (15 August 1844). reprinted in HC
6:302- 17, and in TPJS. 342- 62. For general background on the King Follell
Discourse, see Donald Q. Cannon, 'The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith ' s
Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective:' lJYU Smdies 1811 (1978): 179- 92.
Van Uale, "The Doctrinal Impact or the King Follett Di scourse," BYU Studies
1811 (1978): 209- 25.
300 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 812 ( 1996)
hi ghli ghled in bold face. Readers can decide for the mselves how
mu ch thi s passage " resonat es" with Latter-day Saint Ihough!
whe n read in its proper contex t. 139
139 In order to mnteh Owens's tran~l:llion. I will use Ihlrry Sperling and
M ~uriee Simon. trans .. The Zolwr, 5 vols .. 2nd cd. ( Londo n: Sonci no. 1984);
the first ed ition. with the same pagination. was published from 1931-34. Refer·
ences to the ZIIhar will be made to the editio princel's pagination. with the
Sperling and Simon pages following an equal sign. A superior translat ion of
much of the Zoh(Ir. with very useful notes and commentary can be found in
Tish by. Till' Wi.HlolII of Ihe Zohar. which 1 ha vc used in my intcrpre tat ion. For
the original Aramaic text I have used Stier I/(/-Zolwr (Jerusalem: Yarid ha·
Sefarim. 1994).
140 '111e ufirol arc ten emanations of divine will. :lUthority. Clealive power.
or spiritual force. which were fir~t mentioned in the Sefer Yel~ira (sixth ce ntury
A.D. or earlier). and which were the objects of extensive discussion :lIId
specul;ltion in bbbnlistic liternture. See Tishby. Wisdom of Ihe loh(lr. 1:269-
370; Scholem . Kabb(llah. 23-26.
OWENS. JOSEPH SMITH AND KA8BALAH (HAMB LI N) 301
Could Joseph possibl y have formu lated the ideas in the King
Follett di scourse from this passage in the Zohar? Even the bold -
face passages selective ly taken out of context by Owens bear little
resemblance to Joseph' s King Follett Di scourse:
I will go to the very first Hebrew word-
BERESHITH- in the Bible and make a comment on
the fir st sentence of the hi story of creation: "In the bc-
ginnin g... " [ wanl to analyze the word BERESHITH.
BE- in, by , throu gh, and everyth ing else; nex t,
ROSH- the head; ITH . Where did it come from ? When
the inspired man wrote it , he did not put the first part-
the BE- the re; but a man-an old Jew without any
143 The Hebrew lellers B-Y-T (bayjlh ) when anagra ma lically added 10 R-'-
Sh (rash) ean spell B-R-E-'-Sh-Y-T "'" be- re 'shill! = in the beginning.
144 Zolmr, 1:15a- 15b = 1:63- 64. See also Tishby's Iranslation with exten-
sive annotation in Wi.tI/olI! 01 rile ZO/r(lr. 1:309- 13. Tishby's essays on En Sof,
eman:Jtion. and the slj"irol are all extremely useful. Wisdom of th e Zohor. 1:229 -
55. 269-307. The eventual offspring of the feminine/mother Palace = Binah =
Elohirn are the seven other l·cfirut.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBALAH (HAM BLI N) 303
[45 King Follett Discourse: Cannon. 37: Writings of Joseph Smith. 345,
350-5[,358; Larson. 202; TPJS. 348. I am citi ng the Larson version.
! 46 King Fol[ett Discourse: Cannon. 37-38: Writings of Josef,1! SlIIilh.
358; L:lrson, 202: TPJS, 34~. One might reasonably ask why Joseph wQuld have
considered the 7.ohar to be the authoritative "old Bib[e" when it kcpt the
unauthoritative bl'.
147 For the grammar or the Hehrew particle be. sce Emi[ Kaut zsch. ed ..
Gesenius' Ifebrew Gmmlll(lT, 2nd ed. (1910: reprint, Oxford: Oxford Universi ty
Press, 1983) , 379-80.
304 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS sn ( 1996)
name, " Beg inn ing," a metaphorical reference to the second
seJira, Wisdom. For the Zollar the " Head God" would be the first
sejira, KctcrlEn sor, not the second sefira, Wi sdom/Beginning.
3. Joseph understands bara to mean to "bring forth" or to
"organize." He ex plicitly rejects ex "ihilo creation.
The learned doctors who arc preaching salvation
say that God created the heavens and earth out of
nothing. . . . You ask them why. and they say.
" Doesn' t the Bible say He created the world?" And
they infer that it mu st be out of nothing. The word cre-
ate came f rom the word SARA , but it doesn't mean so.
What docs BARA mean? It means to organize; the same
as a man wou ld organize and use things to build a
s hip. Hence, we infer that God Himse lf had materials to
organize the world out of chaos----c haotic matte r-
which is elemen t and in wh ich dwells all the glo ry.
Ele ment had an ex iste nce from the time He had . 148
its col league. But that whic h is called 'the Cause abo ve
all cau ses,' which has no superior o r even equal, as II is
written, 'To whom shall yc lik en me, that I should be
equal?' (Is. 40:25), said. 'Sec now that I, I am he, and
Eloh im is not with me,' from whom he should take
counsel. ... Withal the colleagues ex.p lained the word
Elohim in this verse as referri ng to other gods." Within
this passage is both the concept of plurality and of th e
hie rarchy of Gods act ing "w ith the pe rmi ss ion and
direction of the one above il. whi le the onc above did
nothing without consulting its co ll eag ue ." Thi s inte r-
pretation is of course ec hoed in the Kin g Fo llett dis-
course and became a foundation for all su bsequ en t
Mormo n theosoph y.152 (p. 182)
152 Citing Zollar 22b-23a '" 92-94. Owens' S page references from th e
7.nlwr arc inaccurate. He claims that the passage is fro m 1:23b (p. IR2 n. (43).
while in fact the material before the ellipses is from I :22b = 93 and the material
afler the ellipses is from 1:23a = 94; cr. Tishby. Wisdom of Ihe Zohar. 1:258-
59. Incidentally. despite Owens's rhetoric. it is not at all clear that Mormonism
has a ··theosophy."
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBA LAH (H AMBLI N) 307
153 Thc 1994 Aramaic edition of Seier /w -Zohar I consulted has a lmost an
additional page of Aramaic tcxt before and after this passage that is not found in
the Sperling and Simon translation, again indicating (hc importance of consult-
ing the original texts Smith and Neib:lur supposcdly read, rather than relying on
a translat ion from :lImos! a century later.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBAU,H (HAMBLI N) 309
The passage from the Zolwr c ited by Owens before the e ll ip-
ses is, in fact, a digression within a digression, referring back to the
orig inal the me of the entire section of the commentary, Genesis
I :26. Owens uses ellipses to c ut an en tire page o f the tex t in the
English trans lation, during which time the theme shifts to
Deu teronomy 32:39. The antecedent o f "t hi s verse" in Owens's
post-ell ipses phrase "w itha l the co llcagues explai ncd the word
Elohim in this verse as referring to other gods" is not Genes is
1:26 as Owens cla ims (p. 182), but Deu teronomy 32:39!
In con text it is qu ite clear that the Zolwr makes no menlion of
the hierarchy or council o f the gods mentioned by Joscph;155 the
lohar speaks in stead of the participation of the sefirol (em a-
nations), the ministeri ng angels and the Shekirwh (l iterall y the
"d we lli ng," but rou ghly the Hol y Spi rit), none of which are
mentio ned by Joseph . The exac t antecedent of the phrase "o th e r
gods" in this passage is amb iguous. It may well be a technical
term from the Old Testament referring not to the true God, but 10
154 ZQhar, 22b-23a '" 1:92-94. Cf. Tishby. Win/om of tire Zolwr. 1:258-
59.
155 King Follett Discourse: Cannon. 37; Writirrgs of Joseph Smjtir. 345.
350-51,358: Larson. 202-3; TPJS. 34K, and [he book of Abraham 4 ;rod 5 for
information on the council of the gods.
310 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 812 (1996)
the fa lse pagan gods. 156 Contra Owens, who claims that elohim in
the Zohar refers to a plurality of gods (pp. 182-8 3), the term
elohim has a technical meaning in the Zohar. "The name Elahilll
is oft en used for three Sefirol joi ntly; Binah [#3 Understanding1,
Cel1llrah [#5 PowerJ, and Malkllllt [#10 SoYcre ig nl yl."157
Another sel of code names for the sefirol includes
156 'nle loci classici are Exodus 20:3 and DeUleronomy 5:7 "thou s hl tt
h:wc no OIiJer god)' berore me." The phrase OIher g(){/s (I-Iebrew elohim akherim)
is ubiqu itous throughout the Old TCSllmcnt (sec, for example, Deuteronomy
6: t 4: 17:3: 28:36; Judges 2:19: 1 Kings 14 :9; Robert Young, Analytical
Concordtmce to the fJib/e (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 19741,7231', provides many
other references), almost alwa ys referring to fa lse pagan deities.
157 Ti shby, Wisdom of the Zo/wr, 1:294.
158 Ibid., sec Tishby, Wisdom of {he Zo/wr, 1:269, d, 269-307 for a
detailed disc ussion of the $cjirol in the Zollll r. ''There is hardly any mention of
SejirOI [by that name in the Zohar l, apart from the later sectio ns. Instead we have
a whole st ring of names: ' levels.' 'powers.' 'sides' or 'areas' (sil ri,,), 'worlds,'
'firmaments,' 'pillars,' 'lights,' 'colors,' 'days,' 'gates,' 'slreams,' 'garments,'
'crowns,' and others" (Ti shhy 1:269). Note that the term elohim is not included
in Tis hby's list of the usual names for the sejirot.
r
des ignate specific forces of ema nati on." IS9 Although some Jew-
ish opponents of kabbali sm accused them of polythe ism, the kab -
bali sls the mselves rejected this criticism. The sefirot were not sepa-
rale gods, but were emanations or instrument s o f God. Kabbali sis
frequently described the re lation ship between God a nd the .~efirol
metaphorically as the relationship between a coa l and its flam e or
a lamp and its light. 160
Allthropomorphism . Another significant differe nce between
the kabbali stic and Joseph's understanding of G od is divine
anthropomorphi sm. 16 1 Joseph Sm ith' s understand i ng of God is
e xplic itly and unrcpenlanlly ant hropomorph ic. "God Himself
who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a Man like unto one of
yourselves- that is the great secret! . . If you were to see Him
today, you would see Him in all the person, image, fashion, a nd
very form of a man, like younelves." 162 A lth ough kabbalistic lit-
erature uses anthropomorphic lan guage extensive ly, the kabbalists
were insistent that such language was strictly metaphorical and did
not literally describe the nature o f God . As the fourteenth -century
kabbalist Joseph Gi kat illa exp lains it
books, and terms. Why is it thai not a single one of these appears
in the writings of Joseph Smith or other early Latter-day Saints?
Why arc Joseph's a lleged references to esoteric thoughl always
vague and allusive, never spec ific and concrete? Why do the
alleged parallels between Joseph and esoteric thought genera lly
find bib lical antecedents, to which Joseph often explicitly refers?
Owens 's claim that Joseph was influenced by the Zohar offers
an excellent lest in ou r search for unique kabbalistic ideas. When
Owens insists that the " inte rpretation of Genesis 1: 1 [that influ-
enced Joseph] is not deeply hidden in the Zohar, but constitutes ils
openin g paragraphs" (p. 181), he is seriously mi srepresenting the
structure of the lahar. He repeatedl y asserts that the passages he
exami nes are "from the openin g sectio ns of the" lohar (p. 182).
o r "from the first section of the lohar" (p. 178). In reality the
passages c ited by Owens cannot possibly be described as const i-
tuting the "opening paragraphs" of the Zohar. They are, in fact,
one-fourth of the way into the first volume-pages 93 and 94 of a
376- page translation .
Owens's thesis requires us to bel ieve that Ncibaur or Josep h
waded through forty-five pages l70 of arcane esoteric Aramaic
(n inety-four pages in Eng li sh translation) to have arrived at the
pas sages that allegedly influenced Joseph . If Joseph accepted the
201wI" as the authoritative "old Bibl e" (p. 183). and had read
forty-five pages of Aramaic to get to the passages he is "q uot in g
almost word for word" (p. 178), should we not find so me evi-
dence of the uni que ideas from the OI her pages that Joseph or
Neibaur must have read to get to the passages Owens claims he
quotes? Where in the thought of Joseph Smith . fo r example. are
the fo llowi ng ideas from the Zolwr:
• the importance of Rabbi Simeon ( 1: la = 1:3. ff.)] 7 l
• spec ulations on th e mystical interchangeability of mi (who)
and mal! (what), and eleh (these), and elohim (god/gods) ( 1: lb-
I :2a = 4- 7)
170 The early printed editions of thc whar :lrc refercnccd by onc number for
hoth the rt'(:fQ and \·er.w p:lgcs. Thus page 23:1 from whic h Joseph supposedly
quutes. is in fact the forty-fi fth page of the lohar.
17 t In the (ollowing citations. the first reference is ( 0 the t'llilio f,rill Cep5
of the Zollar. whilc thc second is to the Sperling and Simon tr:lIlslntion.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBAUIU (HAM BLI N) 315
172 The ZolUJr goes on in a similar vein for almost another thirty translaTed
pages beforc rcaching the passage Joseph allegedly citcs. Examptes of uniquely
kabbalistie ideas could thus he further multiplied.
316 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 8/2 ( 1996)
rality 'of gods, then John 10:34-35 and Psalm 82:6 arc without
question Joseph 's sources for thi s doctrine. 174
In li ght of all this, Owens's claims of "substantial d oc ume n-
tary ev idence" (p. 119) to support his thesis see m exaggerated at
best.
173 I would like to th:mk Daniel C. Peterson for calling this passage to my
atten tion .
174 Doctrine and Covenants 121 :28 also does not fit Owens's theory: "A
time [shall) come in the whic h nOthing sh:lll be wit hheld. whether there be one
God or many gods, they shall be manifest:' This passOJge was written in Mareh
1839. agai n several years before Joseph's alleged kabbnlistic studies. Van 11<lle
provides a useful summary of mOJny additional sources thal refcr to Joseph 's doc 4
trines of hum;)n dciriC:ltion and the plurality of gods. '1 'he Doctrinal Impact of
the King Follett Di scourse." 224-25 .
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITll AND KABBALAH ( HAMBLIN) 3 17
175 See Richard S. Panerson and Dougall Richardson. The £agle aM Ihe
Silield: A fIIs/ ory oJ Ihe Crem Seal oJ Ihe UIJi/ed SImes (Washi ngto n: Depart-
ment of State. 1976), 529- 32: the sea l has been on the back of all one dollar
bills since 1935. Marcus von Wellnitz, "The Catholic Liturgy and the Mormon
Temple," BYU Sllulies 21 ( 198 1): 3- 35. mentions the usc of all-seeing eye im-
agery in Catholic religiOUS 3rt.
176 Patterson and Richardson, The Eagle (!lId Ihe Shield. 532.
177 Gematria is a system of replacing numbers for the letters of a n:lme (A '"
I, B '" 2, etc.). combining and recombining the numhcrs. and speeu lming about
the mystical im plications of the resullant numbers. Sec Scholem, Kabbalah.
337-43.
3 18 FARMS REVIEW or BOOKS 812 (1996)
178 Scholcm, Ktlb ba /ali , 34\-42. As Scholcm notes. there are several dif-
ferent for ms of "filling."
179 Gershom Scholcm, M ajor Trelld£ ill l ewish M yslic i slll (New Yo rk:
Schockcn, 1946), 279, cf. 278- 80.
t 80 Ibid., 265.
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KABBALAH (HAMBLI N) 3 19
Conclusions
In summary , Owen s's thesis cannot bear the weight of cri tica l
scrutiny. He demonstrates an unfamiliarity with man y important
18 1 Gershom Scholem. 0/1 rhe Kahhalah (Uld lIS SYlIJbolism (Ncw York :
Schocken. t996). liS.
182 Sec discussion by Tishby, WisdollJ of rhe Zi)/wr. 1:295- 98.
183 Orson Hyde. "A Diagram of thc Kingdom of God:' Millelll/iat Star 9 (15
Jan uary 1847): 23.
320 FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS 812 ( 1996)
3. Kabhalistic Sources
• 3 . I R. Baccay/Bacay/Bachay (Nc ibau r 22 I a. 233 b): C ited
by Manasseh (Ross \ 8). Owens claims Nc ibaur was quoting R.
Samson Bacchi of Casale Monferrato (p. 192). Thc morc likel y
possibi lity is Bal.l ya ben Asher ben Hl ava, a thirtecnth-ce ntury
kabbali st who wrote Kad Jw-K emah, a widely circulated book on
Ihe foundati ons of faith (EJ 4:104- 5). Neibaur exp li citly re fe r-
ences this work by Bal.l ya as wcll (Neibaur 234a; Owens 194 fails
to make the connectio n betwee n the two).t 86
• 3.2 Book Rad Hake mah (Neibaur 234a): Kad ha -Kemah .
by Bal.l ya bcn Asher, a thirtcenth -ccntury philosop hcr (see 3. 1
abovc under R. Baccay).
· 3.3 Mcdrash Neclam (Neibaur 22 1b, Owens 192): Midrash
h(l -Ne/am is a princ ipal section of the Zohar. the kabbali stic
1R6 Other o ptions include Pseudo· 13atna, author of a,l the Essence of the
Soul. 1111 elevenlh or rwelflh-eemury book wriUen originally in Arabic and trans-
lated into Hcbrew in 1896 (I'd 4:103) or Ral.IY:l ben Joseph ibn P:l<\udn, :In
elevcnth-century philosopher who wrote /-/01'01 IW·LeWII'OI (Duties of the Heart),
a hook on rhe narure of Ihe soul wrinen in Amhie (\080). rrnnsl:lled inlo Hehrew
(I 161 ) and widely cireulmctl ( J:') 4: I 05-6).
OWENS, JOSEPH SMITH AND KA fJRA LAH (H AMBLIN) 325
co llection of esote ric teac hings in the Torah writte n in the four -
teenth ce ntury (£1 16: 1196) .
• 3 .4 Sohar (Neibaur 222a, 222b): The Zoha r.
3.5 Rabbi Naphtali in Emakhame lek (Neibaur 22 1b, 222a,
Owens 192): £mek ha-Melekh is an important and widely c ircu-
lated kabbali stic work written by Naphta li ben Jacob E lhana n
Bacharac h and publi shed in 1648 (£1 4:49; 10:549).
3.6 Jalkut Kodosh, Jalkut Kadash, Talku t Kadash (Ne ibaur
22 lb, 222a, Owens 192): A se venteenth-century anthology o f
kabba listic writings. Yalkut ha-Makhiri and Yalkut Shimoni are
both anthologies of aggadic midrashim possi bly written in the
fourteenth and th irteenth centuries, respective ly (El 16:706-9).
3.7 Aph kat Rackel,O phkut Rockel (Neibaur 22 1b, 233 b.
O wens 193): A seventee nth-century kabbalistic book , A bkar
Rockel.
3. 8 Avod ath Hakodash, Abodah Hakadash (Neibaur 222b):
Avodat Ira-Kodesh, a sixteenth-century kabba listic work written by
Me ir ibn Gabbay, publ ished in Venice in 1566 (£1 7:34; 12:308).